I challenge you to present a single, sound argument for God's existence. Burden of Proof is solely on my opponent. Voters will judge whether or not the argument has proven itself to be sound or not, and if it's unclear by the end, then they are to judge the result based on simply who presented a better case. Any questions will be answered in the comments, any definitions can be clarified in comments before jumping into the debate.

Please feel free to present your argument in the first round so that we can get right into it.

Hi, i am willing to accept the challenge of proving God's existance in one argument. Why do we have moral standards? Moral standards (right or wrong) have from something, something that is pure. If one says that thre is no standard, then there can't be a distiction between right or wrong.Our idea of morality has to come from somewhere, and where else would it come from, then not from a holy being. If we did not have morality, then we would still be using our instincts. Hunting, killing, surviving. Why is the human species the only species on Earth that relies on knowledge and not instincts?

Your argument is basically that there are universal moral standards, unique to humans, which had to have to come from somewhere, God being the most likely/logical source.

I will contest this claim in two ways.

Firstly, I don't see any evidence for a universal morality. We see people raping, killing, pillaging, torturing, stealing and destroying the lives of others for personal gain or to be rewarded in the afterlife. Where is this universal morality you speak of? I'm assuming you find all of the above mentioned things to be "morally bad". Even if you don't, that only furthers my point that there's no universal moral standard because our standards differ.

Every society has different moral standards, some people find death penalty to be just, others don't. Societies existed (and probably still exist) where cannibalism is a totally acceptable practice. There are societies where rape as a form of punishment for a crime is acceptable. Where is this universal morality you speak of?

It varies from society to society, one time period to another.

Secondly, I'd like to contest your claim that a holy being is the most logical/only place these "moral standards" come from. Even assuming that there are universal moral standards, why must they be a result of holy intervention? Why couldn't they be the result of a human gene? Or upbringing?

I'm afraid I don't see any evidence for "universal moral standards", and even they did exist, I don't see why they must be the result of anything supernatural.

I get a feeling that you do not understand what moral standards are. Moral standards are actions that are understood as good or bad. You yourself have moral standards because you believe that rape and cannibalism is wrong. People may do something wrong, but that is our sinful nature. Moral standards are perfect, there is right and wrong, and that is truth. Something perfect cannot come from someone that is not perfect. We may break the standard, but that doesn't mean it will be gone. The moral standard is help by the perfect one, the holy on, which is God. Moral standards don't mean actions, they means understanding. We acknowledge that there is good or bad. You said why it could not come from human genes. Easy. What made humans think? What made them give up their instincts and understand good and bad? Don't you think that there are just too many coincidences in this world?

My point is that clearly people have different moral standards. What I see as wrong, someone else sees as permissible.

"Something perfect cannot come from someone that is not perfect."
Is this even a provable claim?

"We may break the standard, but that doesn't mean it will be gone."
Yes, but someone can kill me for looking at them the wrong way and feel justified in doing that if it's in their culture. That's breaking my moral standards, but not theirs. They feel justified and fine. We have different standards, there is no "perfect standard".

The following is tangential to our debate, but I'd like to address it anyways.
"What made humans think?"
Development of a more advanced brain, larger frontal lobe.

"What made them give up their instincts and understand good and bad?"
We never gave up our instincts, we just act rationally more often. We understand "good and bad" because of the way we are raised, and also because we have empathy so we typically don't like doing to others what we don't want done to ourselves.

"Don't you think that there are just too many coincidences in this world?"
No.

In my previous Round, I mentioned several examples of cultural traditions that are morally acceptable in the culture of their origin, but are morally unacceptable in Western culture. Does this alone not show that there is no one "perfect" standard?